Tag: Working

  • From playground to lecture hall – working with schools to support wellbeing throughout education

    From playground to lecture hall – working with schools to support wellbeing throughout education

    Higher education institutions are increasingly acknowledging the importance of wellbeing in shaping meaningful and sustainable learning experiences. However, the wellbeing of students and staff is often treated as a separate or secondary issue, addressed through isolated initiatives rather than embedded into the fabric of university life.

    I propose adopting a lifelong approach to wellbeing in education grounded in appreciating that schools and universities are not distinct spheres. Rather, they are stages on a continuous educational journey. The way we foster wellbeing in schools must inform, and align with, our practices in higher education.

    Foundations for wellbeing

    The foundations laid in schools play a crucial role in shaping how learners experience their transition into university. When educational environments nurture emotional resilience, social connection, and inclusive responses to academic pressures, learners arrive in higher education with a stronger base of support. In contrast, when wellbeing is not prioritised earlier in the educational journey, the structural and emotional demands of university life can amplify existing challenges. This underscores the need for continuity and care across the educational continuum, rather than placing responsibility on individuals to adapt alone.

    In many school systems, wellbeing is increasingly recognised as integral to education. A holistic, strengths-based approach helps ensure that wellbeing is supported through curriculum design, teaching practices, and whole-school approaches and policies. Programmes focused on social and emotional learning are embedded, and collaboration across sectors – education, health, and community – creates a network of support that extends beyond the classroom.

    In higher education, this picture is evolving. The work on wellbeing spearheaded by Universities UK in recent years has helped universities to become more attuned to the importance of wellbeing, yet academic culture often remains shaped by competitiveness, performance metrics, and output-driven models. This dynamic also influences schools in some contexts, particularly where high stakes testing and narrow accountability frameworks dominate. However, there tends to be greater acceptance within schools that wellbeing and learning are deeply interconnected.

    In the university context, structural pressures, including institutional expectations and the demands of competitive academic cultures, continue to affect both students and staff, contributing to stress, burnout, and mental health difficulties. Although there is growing attention to student wellbeing in policy and strategy, support for staff wellbeing remains less visible, despite its clear influence on teaching quality and the wider learning environment. There is a need for a joined-up, systemic approach recognising the interdependence of student and staff wellbeing.

    Whole institution approaches

    A whole-university approach, as promoted by Universities UK, is a strategic, institution-wide commitment to embedding wellbeing into every dimension of university life, echoing the well-established whole-school model in many primary and secondary education systems. Just as whole-school approaches integrate wellbeing into teaching, leadership, curriculum, and engagement with families and communities, a whole-university approach ensures that wellbeing is not confined to support services or stand-alone initiatives. It becomes a shared responsibility, woven into the ethos, governance, and daily practices of the institution.

    Rather than relying on reactive services, this model positions wellbeing as a core value that shapes leadership, curriculum, pedagogy, and institutional relationships. It calls for cultural transformation, redefining success to focus not solely on outcomes, but on flourishing. This includes embedding wellbeing in teaching and assessment, professional development, work-life balance, and inclusive, compassionate organisational values. It requires systems that promote flexibility, equity, and psychological safety as the norm.

    Universities must be understood as ecosystems. When this ecosystem is well, everyone within it is more likely to thrive. This involves designing curricula that support engagement and wellbeing, adopting inclusive policies, and nurturing cultures of trust, care, and belonging in both academic and administrative contexts.

    Higher education can also learn from the progress made in schools. Many school systems have already developed comprehensive frameworks for promoting wellbeing – such as the Health Promoting Schools model – which successfully embed wellbeing into governance, pedagogy, and wider school life. Higher education has much to gain from adapting these models to its own settings, helping to ensure continuity of support as learners move between sectors.

    Embedding wellbeing through national frameworks

    Aligning approaches across schools and universities creates a more cohesive experience for learners and reduces the sense of disorientation that often accompanies educational transitions. It also enables valuable exchange between sectors, where shared learning can lead to better outcomes for all.

    Within this context, and especially given the significance of the transition from school to university, national leadership is essential in embedding wellbeing consistently across education systems. The move into higher education is more than a change of setting; it is a profound developmental shift, often marked by increased autonomy, identity exploration, and academic complexity. While this transition can be exciting, it also brings vulnerability and emotional strain. Maintaining wellbeing support across this bridge is therefore not optional; it is essential. Yet it is precisely at this stage that inconsistencies and gaps often emerge. National policies that intentionally bridge sectors can ensure wellbeing remains a continuous thread throughout a learner’s journey.

    One crucial aspect of national leadership is the development of robust policy and strategy relating to wellbeing, both within institutions and at a broader, systemic level. Country-wide initiatives create coherence, consistency, and a shared vision – particularly important when seeking to strengthen the links between schools and universities. Ireland, for instance, has implemented a national policy and strategy around mental health that spans multiple sectors, not just education. This kind of joined-up approach exemplifies how public policy can help to sustain cultural change across the education system and beyond.

    The wellbeing of our educational communities is not a peripheral concern. It is central to the very purpose of education. By embedding wellbeing across every level – through policy, pedagogy, leadership, and institutional culture – we not only support individuals to succeed, but also help to build resilient, compassionate institutions where everyone can flourish.

    Source link

  • International students benefit local economies, and this extends to those living and working there

    International students benefit local economies, and this extends to those living and working there

    Universities once again find themselves in the crosshairs of a political argument around migration.

    I suspect no one on these pages needs convincing of the benefits international students bring to the UK: the diversity and vibrancy they add to our campuses, the fees that help our finances add up so we can carry out research and teach home students, the wider economic impact they bring through their fees and their spending in the UK economy, and the long term soft power of goodwill and friendship that our international alumni generate.

    And there is plenty of public opinion research – for example from Public First and UUK in 2023, from King’s College London in 2024, and from British Future in 2025 – that shows that the British public supports international student migration, thinks it brings economic benefits, and doesn’t see cutting numbers as a priority.

    But we have to be clear that we are losing the political argument on the value of international students – as have our HE colleagues in Canada, Australia and the US in recent months.

    A local industry

    This is the case despite the hard facts we have about the positive impacts of international students, including the £42 billion aggregate (2021–22 numbers) annual economic benefit estimated by London Economics. But those facts may not be enough as the political climate changes; we need to be agile in responding to where the political debate is moving.

    For example, we understand that the aggregate economic impact of international students is not disputed within the government. But they are not convinced that positive impacts are felt at the local level. So what do these big, aggregate numbers mean for citizens at the local level? To address that question, the University of York commissioned some rapid work from Public First – building on the London Economics modelling – to show the benefits of international students at constituency level, both as an export industry, and in their impact on domestic living standards.

    The first part of this work was published a few weeks ago at the heart of the debate around the final stages of the immigration white paper. This showed that international higher education is one of our most important export industries. This was counterintuitive for many politicians – who generally think of exports as goods or services which we trade overseas. But in fact, every international student coming and living in the UK is an “export” – bringing in foreign currency and supporting our economy.

    Politicians rightly champion our other UK exports – our cars, our pharmaceuticals, our creative industries. But across the country, higher education is just as, if not more important. We showed that in 26 parliamentary constituencies around the country, higher education is the single largest export industry – and it is in the top three in a total of 102 constituencies, spread around the country. To put it another way, in many towns and cities, higher education is the car plant, or the steel mill, or the pharmaceuticals factory that drives local economies.

    We hear that this evidence of real local impact was significant within Whitehall, and contributed to seeing off some of the wider proposals for restricting student flows that could have been in the immigration white paper.

    Pounds in pockets

    The second half of this research, published today, takes on some of the critique we know has been advanced in government in recent months: that while students may bring economic value in some abstract, aggregate way at national level, there are costs that are felt locally in our towns and cities that reduce living standards.

    Our analysis comprehensively debunks that. Instead, we show that international students are net contributors to the taxpayer, and that at the local level they raise wages and living standards for domestic residents. We calculate that every worker in the UK has higher wages to the value of almost £500 a year purely as a result of international students’ economic contribution. And in more than 100 constituencies, the benefit is much larger, equating to more than two and a half weeks’ wages for the average worker.

    These local-level impacts are often well-recognised by MPs and councillors. They are not yet in national-level debate. So we will continue to make the case for the wider benefits of international students for our towns and cities as well as abstract national GDP figures.

    In addition, we need to push back against the misguided assumptions in the white paper that the proposed new international students levy would have only a minor impact on recruitment, and show in detail why the reduction in numbers would be large, and carry with it an economic loss that would go way beyond universities’ gates and into their local communities. We are pleased to be working alongside colleagues in the sector to do just that.

    In all this we need to recognise the politics of the moment. All governments are political. That is how they got there, and to be so isn’t wrong! We have a government focused at the moment on its electoral prospects, and many of its actions can be explained by a drive to keep its voting coalition together, especially with the insurgent threat of Reform, and especially on the highly politicised issue of migration.

    Universities are well advised to steer clear of party politics. As a vice chancellor, I work without fear or favour to support the needs of staff and students, but also the city and communities around York. But my academic background is as a political scientist so I’m a keen observer of how universities, migration, and their intersection have electoral significance. So, looking at the 100 constituencies we identify in our research which benefit the most from international students either as an export, or in rising domestic wages, it is noteworthy that over 80 per cent of those constituencies are currently held by Labour MPs, often by very narrow margins.

    In those and the many other constituencies where international students bring real, tangible economic benefits, it is important that local citizens and political representatives understand what is at stake when widely held public concerns about migration lead to the targeting a group – international students – who the public both think highly of, and who make a big contribution to local economies.

    Source link

  • Hawaiʻi’s Working Families Need More Support – The 74

    Hawaiʻi’s Working Families Need More Support – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Sarah Osofsky returned to school last year to earn her master’s degree in social work, hoping to give back to her community and find a job that would pay enough to survive Hawaiʻi’s high cost of living.

    Now, less than two weeks away from graduation, the mother of two is struggling to find a position that can sustain her family.

    Most social work jobs she’s seen in recent months offer salaries of $60,000 or less — enough to disqualify her from safety net programs like food stamps, but not enough to comfortably provide for her kids. She’s considered moving back to California where she has family who could support her, but she wants to stay in Hawaiʻi so her children can be near their dad.

    “What I’m balancing right now is, do I take a low, low paying job that then I’ll qualify for services like food stamps and Medicaid,” Osofsky said, “or do I hold out and try to find those few and far between really good jobs that will make enough so I don’t qualify but I don’t need it.”

    Osofsky’s struggle is a familiar one for working families in Hawaiʻi. In 2024, nearly 30% of Hawaiʻi households were living paycheck-to-paycheck and struggling to afford basic necessities like housing, child care and food, according to an annual count of the state’s ALICE families — an acronym for people who are asset limited, income constrained, and employed.

    Like Osofsky, roughly 40% of these families considered leaving the state over the past year, according to a study from Aloha United Way.

    While some reports indicate that more locals have been returning to Hawaiʻi in the last few years, the state’s high cost of living continues to drive some families away, straining the public education system and economy.

    Earlier this year, the Department of Education said its kindergarten enrollment dropped from 13,000 in 2019 to nearly 10,800 this year, citing estimates that 20% of people leaving Hawaiʻi are school-aged kids. The department is now starting the process of consolidating small schools, although it hasn’t yet identified which campuses are at risk of closure.

    A few years ago, state lawmakers grappling with the Covid-19 pandemic proposed a bold slate of reforms to improve the plight of working families: free school meals for all, universal access to preschool and paid family leave. But the state’s big plans for progress have resulted in incremental steps, and some families and advocates say change isn’t happening quickly enough.

    Lawmakers this session created a working group to study paid family leave but failed to turn the yearslong proposal into law. The state expanded eligibility for preschool tuition subsidies and funded preschool construction but failed to address the ongoing shortage of early learning educators. And Senate Bill 1300 — considered one of the biggest wins for students this year — expanded access to free school meals but stopped short of providing them for all kids.

    At the same time, uncertainty looms around the future of programs that rely on federal dollars to support working families, including school meals and early learning centers.

    Amid the upheaval, state lawmakers were hesitant to pass big spending measures this year, opting instead to set aside $200 million to help Hawaiʻi prepare for federal funding cuts. But some advocates say now is exactly the time for the state to make a bigger investment in families.

    “The state Legislature, and frankly, the counties, should be thinking, ‘Bad stuff is coming,’” said Deborah Zysman, executive director of Hawaiʻi Children’s Action Network. “We don’t quite know what yet, but we should be thinking about how to take care of our own people.”

    An Urgent Need For Child Care

    During the Covid-19 pandemic, Osofsky worried about the social development of her son, who was just turning 2 when lockdown restrictions began. But when he began attending the University of Hawaiʻi Mānoa Children’s Center later that year, Osofsky said, he received services for his speech delay and became comfortable making friends and recognizing letters.

    But paying for preschool was a challenge, Osofsky said. The Preschool Open Doors program provides a state subsidy to help cover tuition, but her son was ineligible when he started because the program only covered 4-year-olds at the time. The program expanded to include 3-year-olds last year.

    Hawaiʻi has pledged to offer preschool to all 3- and 4-year-olds by 2032. The Ready Keiki initiative, led by Lt. Gov. Sylvia Luke, currently estimates the state needs to add more than 330 classrooms in the next seven years to provide preschool to an additional 6,700 children.

    While lawmakers successfully expanded access to tuition subsidies and funded more preschool construction this year, progress toward the state’s ambitious goal has slowed on other fronts.

    One successful bill this session expands eligibility for preschool subsidies by including 2-year-olds and repealing the requirement that families must use the subsidy at a nationally accredited provider, which has created financial and administrative barriers for smaller programs in the past, Zysman said.

    But the Department of Human Services is on track to spend only $20 million of its $50 million budget for preschool subsidies this year, said Scott Morishige, administrator of the department’s Benefit, Employment and Support Services Division.

    To ramp up its spending, DHS is considering expanding the income eligibility to 500% of the federal poverty line. If DHS adopts the rules this summer, Morishige said, a family of four could make up to $184,000 annually and still be eligible for assistance, compared to the past income limit of $110,000.

    The state budget sets aside $20 million to build more public preschool classrooms over the next three years. The state plans on opening 25 public preschool classrooms this fall and an additional 25 classrooms the following year, far less than previous estimates that Hawaiʻi could build 40-50 classrooms annually.

    While the state would like to take a more aggressive approach to opening public preschool classrooms moving forward, Luke said, the Ready Keiki initiative is also relying on private providers and charter schools to help expand access. The state is starting larger construction projects, like standalone preschool centers, that could add seats more rapidly as they open in the next few years.

    “There is an urgency for us to open as many preschool seats as we can,” she said.

    But families’ demand for preschool could grow beyond what the state has anticipated if the federal government stops funding its own child care programs. Head Start, which relies on federal funding and serves roughly 2,800 children and pregnant mothers, is currently Hawaiʻi’s largest provider of early learning services, said Ryan Kusumoto, president and CEO of the nonprofit Parents And Children Together.

    The Trump administration has previously threatened to cut funding entirely for Head Start, although the most recent version of the federal budget keeps program funding intact. Some Hawaiʻi Head Start programs are still waiting to receive confirmation for next year’s funding, and the recent closure of some regional offices could create backlogs in awarding this money, said Ben Naki, president of the Head Start Association of Hawaiʻi.

    “There’s no existing infrastructure that can pick up those 2,800 kids,” Kusumoto said. “And we’re talking about kids who don’t have any other resources.”

    First Steps For Free Meals

    Since September, Christine Russo said paying for meals has become a greater challenge for her family as her twins joined her 10-year-old in attending school every day. She sets aside roughly $180 each month so her kids can purchase breakfast and lunch at school — a challenge for the public school teacher, whose husband is a retail store manager.

    Russo’s kids don’t qualify for free or reduced-price school meals, but she said her family could still benefit from the ongoing push to bring back a pandemic-era program that made meals free for all students.

    Lawmakers stopped short of funding a universal free meals program this year but took incremental steps by passing Senate Bill 1300. Starting next year, the state will provide free school meals to students who currently qualify for reduced-price lunch. The following year, eligibility for free school meals would be expanded to families making up to 300% of the federal poverty level, or roughly $110,000 for a family of four.

    The bill appropriates $565,000 to provide more free school meals next year and an additional $3.4 million for the program’s expansion the following year. More than 68,000 students in the Department of Education qualified for free meals this year, and 10,000 qualified for reduced-price meals.

    The bill also requires schools feed students who don’t have enough money to purchase lunch or already have meal debt. Students have accrued more than $105,000 in meal debt this school year, DOE communications director Nanea Ching said.

    At Castle High School, junior Tayli Kahoopii said she receives free meals, but some of her friends don’t qualify. When someone doesn’t have enough money in their account to purchase lunch, the register makes a buzzing sound — loud enough to embarrass students and, in one instance, deter Kahoopii’s friend from trying to purchase meals for a week.

    “On a daily basis, you see kids getting their food taken away, and there’s really nothing that they can do about it,” Kahoopii said, adding that it’s difficult for students to learn and focus when they don’t have access to food during the school day.

    Rep. Scot Matayoshi, who has introduced bills for the past three years proposing free school meals, said SB1300 is an important step. But he still plans on advocating for universal free school meals in the coming years, especially since it would reduce the administrative barriers schools and families face in determining who qualifies for free meals.

    Daniela Spoto, director of food equity at Hawaiʻi Appleseed, said providing all students with free school meals could also become more important with federal funding on the line. Proposed federal cuts to a program allowing schools in low-income areas to provide free meals to all children could impact 52 schools and more than 27,000 kids in Hawaiʻi, according to estimates from the Food Research and Action Center.

    “It should be a staple for our schools to have free school lunch,” said Castle junior Haliʻa Tom-Jardine, who will begin qualifying for free school meals next year. “It should be a right.”

    ‘Bad Things Are Coming’

    During the pandemic, people saw lawmakers step up and meet the needs of working families through federal initiatives like the child tax credit and free school meals, said Kayla Keehu-Alexander, vice president of community impact at Aloha United Way. Now, she said, state lawmakers need to do the same during times of uncertainty.

    “If we don’t start making some big policy changes around the cost of living, around housing, we could potentially be looking at a larger out-migration than we’ve had in the past,” she said.

    Hawaiʻi is already starting to see the possible impacts of out-migration on its schools and economy. While some people are coming back to Hawaiʻi to raise families, Keehu-Alexander said, it’s unclear if they’re joining the workforce in areas with the worst staffing shortages, like education or healthcare.

    Looking ahead to next year, Zysman said she would like to see a successful bill establishing paid family leave in Hawaiʻi, which would provide caregivers paid time off to care for their loved ones. Lawmakers have failed to pass a bill for several years, although they did approve a resolution last month establishing a working group that will study how to implement paid family leave over the next year.

    Zysman added that she’s concerned about the long-term impacts of the historic tax cut lawmakers passed last year. While she supports cuts that can make it more affordable for people to stay in Hawaiʻi, she said, she’s worried that tax breaks for the wealthiest will make it harder for the state to fund programs that can keep working families afloat.

    “In my gut, I feel like bad things are coming,” Zysman said, “and we should have acted more preemptively.”

    This story was originally published on Honolulu Civil Beat. Civil Beat’s education reporting is supported by a grant from Chamberlin Family Philanthropy.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • What’s Working in College Marketing and Recruitment in 2025?

    What’s Working in College Marketing and Recruitment in 2025?

    What’s Working in 2025 (From Both Sides of the Desk)

    Ever wonder if enrollment professionals and students actually speak the same language? Fresh data from RNL’s 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices for Undergraduate Students and the forthcoming 2025 E-Expectations reports reveal some fascinating alignments (and a few mismatches) between how we recruit and how students actually make decisions.

    The human touch still rules (surprise!)

    Remember when we thought Zoom would replace campus tours? Well, the data tell a crystal-clear story that shows the importance of face-to-face connections.:

    • In-person meetings hit 100% effectiveness across all institution types
    • 88% of students who visit campus find it helpful
    • College fairs are crushing it with 85% helpfulness ratings

    Translation: In our AI-everything world, humans still want to talk to actual humans. Revolutionary, right?

    Digital sweet spots (when we get it right)

    Here’s where it gets interesting. Both students and enrollment leaders agree that digital works best when it’s personal and purposeful.

    What’s working:

    • Mobile-responsive websites: 100% effectiveness at private institutions (but only 77% are using them – make it make sense!)
    • SMS messaging: 100% effectiveness across the board
    • Personalized videos: 96% effectiveness when used (but only 49% of private institutions are creating them)
    • Student connection platforms: Up to 100% effective when used properly

    The email plot twist

    Breaking news: Students read your emails!

    • 89% engage with college emails
    • 88% find them helpful
    • 96-100% effectiveness rating from institutions
    • 61% either like or expect personalized experiences

    The secret sauce? Personalization that doesn’t feel like it came from a robot.

    The AI elephant in the room

    Some interesting gaps here:

    • AI chatbots: 74% of students find them helpful (and 68% are using them)
    • Live chat: 79% helpful (71% usage)
    • Digital advertising: Up to 100% effectiveness for institutions

    Key insight: Students are more open to AI than we think—they just need to know these tools exist.

    Your game plan: 3 key takeaways

    1. Keep it human: Those perfect effectiveness ratings on in-person meetings aren’t accidents
    2. Double down on digital personalization: But please, make it authentic
    3. Mind the gaps: Your most effective tools are often your least used (looking at you, personalized videos)

    Stop choosing between high-tech and high-touch—you need both. Just make sure your human connection has a mobile-responsive website to back it up. Because some things never change, and some things really, really need to.

    Find out more in our reports and even more at the RNL National Conference

    These results come from the 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices for Undergraduate Students report and from our forthcoming 2025 E-Expectations Report (coming June 2025).

    We’ll also be diving into these reports and much, much more at our 2025 RNL National Conference, July 22-24 in Atlanta. Check out the program for more details on our 120 conference sessions.

    Attend the 2025 RNL National Conference

    Choose from more than 120 sessions across six tracks:

    • Undergraduate marketing and recruitment
    • Graduate and online enrollment
    • Student success
    • Financial aid
    • Strategic planning
    • AI and innovations

    See the session descriptions and save big when you register early.

    2025 RNL National Conference Session Descriptions

    Source link

  • The Evolution of College Recruitment: What’s Working in 2025

    The Evolution of College Recruitment: What’s Working in 2025

    As higher education faces what experts call an “enrollment cliff,” with projections showing a potential 15% decline in traditional college-aged students, institutions are radically re-imagining their recruitment strategies. The latest data from RNL’s 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices For Undergraduate Students report reveals fascinating shifts in how different institutions connect with prospective students in this challenging landscape.

    The human touch remains supreme

    In an era dominated by digital technology, the enduring power of human connection stands out prominently in the data. Face-to-face interactions continue to be the most effective recruitment tool for both four-year private and public institutions while ranking as the second most effective strategy for two-year colleges. This finding reinforces what many enrollment professionals have long suspected: despite technological advances, students crave authentic, personal connections when making significant life decisions.

    The effectiveness of in-person meetings spans various formats—from traditional campus tours to innovative “mini-sessions” with faculty and current students. These interactions provide prospective students with tangible experiences that digital alternatives cannot replicate. Recent research from Higher Education Marketing confirms that prospective students in 2025 seek personalized experiences that resonate with their individual aspirations and concerns.

    Digital innovation takes center stage

    While the human element remains crucial, the digital recruitment landscape has evolved beyond basic email campaigns into a sophisticated ecosystem of interconnected strategies. Two-year institutions are particularly notable for successfully adopting digital advertising as their primary recruitment tool, demonstrating how smaller institutions can effectively compete in the digital space.

    Personalized videos have emerged as a powerful medium across all institution types, appearing in the top three most effective strategies for public universities and community colleges in the RNL Marketing and Recruitment report. These aren’t generic promotional videos—they’re customized content pieces that speak directly to individual student interests, academic goals, and career aspirations.

    Text messaging has become a crucial communication channel, particularly for four-year institutions. This shift reflects the broader trend of meeting students where they are—on their mobile devices. Successful institutions are using texting not just for announcements but for meaningful engagement, including quick Q&A sessions, application status updates, and deadline reminders.

    The advertising landscape

    The advertising strategies employed by institutions reveal a nuanced understanding of their target audiences. Social media advertising dominates the scene for four-year private and two-year institutions, while public universities are finding success with a more diverse media mix, including television ads. This divergence suggests that different institutional types successfully identify and leverage the channels most effective for their specific audience segments.

    Re-targeted ads have proven particularly effective in the top three strategies for private institutions and community colleges. This sophisticated approach indicates a deep understanding of the modern student’s digital journey—from initial awareness through the final enrollment decision. Video advertising’s strong performance across all categories underscores the growing importance of dynamic, visual content in capturing and maintaining student attention in an increasingly competitive digital landscape.

    Digital strategy deep dive

    Search engine optimization (SEO) has emerged as a cornerstone of digital strategy, particularly for private institutions. This emphasis on SEO reflects a fundamental truth about modern student behavior: the college search process overwhelmingly begins online. Institutions that excel at SEO are ensuring they’re visible at the crucial moment when students begin their higher education journey.

    Request for information (RFI) forms continue to play a vital role, though their implementation has evolved significantly. The most successful institutions are now embedding RFI forms within interactive content experiences and using AI-powered chatbots to provide immediate, personalized responses. This shift toward automated yet personalized engagement represents a crucial evolution in how institutions manage initial student inquiries.

    Management practices: The rise of AI and analytics

    Behind the scenes, the most transformative changes occur in how institutions manage and analyze their recruitment efforts. The integration of AI in admissions has reached a tipping point, with eight in 10 colleges now utilizing some form of artificial intelligence in their processes. This technology is used for basic tasks, sophisticated predictive modeling, and personalized communication strategies.

    Private institutions are leading the charge in leveraging AI for enrollment operations, while all institution types are embracing increasingly sophisticated tracking and analytics tools. Behavioral scoring and engagement tracking have moved from an innovative approach to an essential practice, indicating a decisive shift toward data-driven decision-making in enrollment management.

    CRM systems have become particularly crucial for two-year institutions according to the RNL report, suggesting a growing emphasis on relationship management throughout the enrollment funnel. These systems are no longer simple contact databases but have evolved into comprehensive platforms that track, analyze, and optimize every student interaction.

    Looking forward

    These findings paint a picture of an industry in transition, balancing traditional high-touch approaches with innovative digital solutions. Success in 2025’s challenging enrollment landscape requires a sophisticated blend of:

    • Personal connection through face-to-face interactions
    • Strategic digital engagement across multiple channels
    • Data-driven decision-making powered by AI and analytics
    • Personalized communication at scale

    For enrollment professionals, the message is clear: while the tools and techniques may evolve, the fundamental goal remains unchanged—connecting with prospective students in meaningful ways that address their individual needs and aspirations.

    The institutions that will thrive can effectively combine the warmth of personal interaction with the efficiency of digital innovation, all while maintaining authentic connections with their prospective students.

    Want to dive deeper? Read the report

    2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices for Undergraduate Students: Effective practices for undergraduate recruitment at four-year and two-year institutions.

    Ready to transform your institution’s recruitment strategy with data-driven insights? Download the complete 2025 Marketing and Recruitment Practices Report to access:

    • Detailed breakdowns by institution type
    • Implementation guides for top strategies
    • Benchmark data to compare your performance
    • Expert analysis and recommendations
    • Case studies from successful institutions

    Download the full report now and get exclusive access to comprehensive data and insights that will shape your 2025 recruitment strategy.

    Source link

  • Working People’s State of the Union

    Working People’s State of the Union

    The official Working Families Party response to President Trump’s address to the joint session of Congress was delivered by Rep. Lateefah Simon (CA-12).

    Source link

  • “Are Working Class Voters Done with Democrats?” (CUNY School of Labor and Urban Stidies)

    “Are Working Class Voters Done with Democrats?” (CUNY School of Labor and Urban Stidies)

    What’s at Stake for Labor:

    Project 2025 and the Department of Government Efficiency 

     

     

    Wednesday, February 5

    7:00pm – 8:30pm

     

    Virtual event via Zoom webinar. 

     

    Register:  

    slucuny.swoogo.com/5February2025

     

    

    Featured Speakers: 

    James Goodwin – Policy Director, Center for Progressive Reform

    Diana Reddy – Assistant Professor, UC Berkeley Law

    Arjun Singh – Senior Podcast Producer, The Lever

    Moderated by Samir Sonti – Assistant Professor, CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies.

     

    What are the real costs to bear on workers–especially civil service and public sector workers – with Project 2025 and the establishment of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency? What strategies can labor employ to counter this attack on working people and unions? How can looking back at previous far right policy projects help prepare us in our fight to protect workers? Join us to hear from law & policy experts and journalists as they discuss these urgent questions.

    Source link

  • Americans Are GIVING UP On Working, And the Job Market Is Broken. (Large Man Abroad)

    Americans Are GIVING UP On Working, And the Job Market Is Broken. (Large Man Abroad)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Americans Are GIVING UP On Working, And the Job Market Is Broken. (Large Man Abroad)




    Source link

  • An early look at 2023–24 financial returns shows providers working hard to balance the books

    An early look at 2023–24 financial returns shows providers working hard to balance the books

    In most larger UK providers of higher education, the 2023–24 financial year ended on 31 July 2024.

    Five months and two weeks after this date (so, on or before 14 January 2025) providers are obliged to have published (and communicated to regulators) audited financial statements for that year.

    I’ve got a list of 160 large, well known, providers of higher education who should, by now, have made this disclosure – 43 of them are yet to do so. Of the 117 that have, just 15 (under 13 per cent) posted a deficit for that financial year (to be fair, this includes eight providers in Wales, where the deadline – for bilingual accounts – is the end of the month). This was as of the data of publication, there’s been a few more been discovered since then and I have added some to the charts below.

    If you’ve been aware of individual providers, mission groups, representative bodies, trade unions, regulators, and politicians coming together to make the case that the sector is severely underfunded this may surprise you. If you work in an institution that is curtailing courses, making staff redundant, and undergoing the latest in a long series of cost-cutting exercises, the knowledge that your university has posted a surplus may make you angry.

    But these results are not surprising, and a surplus should not make you angry (there are plenty of other reasons to be angry…) Understanding what an annual account is for, what a surplus is, why a university will pull out all of the stops to post a surplus, and what are the more alarming underpinning signals that we should be aware of will help you understand why we have what – on the face of it – feels like a counter-intuitive position in university finances.

    Why are so many results missing?

    There’s a range of reasons why a provider may submit accounts late – those who are yet to publish will already be deep in conversation with regulators about the issues that may have caused what is, technically, a breach of a regulatory condition. In England, this is registration condition E3. which is underpinned by the accounts direction.

    If you are expecting regulators to get busy issuing fines or sanctions for late submissions – you should pause. There’s a huge problem with public sector audit capacity in the UK – the big players have discrete teams that move on an annual cycle between higher education, NHS, and local government audit. You don’t need to have read too much into public finances to know that our councils are under serious pressure right now – and this pressure results in audit delays, hitting the same teams who will be acting as external university auditors.

    That’s one key source of delay. The other would be the complexities within university annual accounts, and university finances more generally, that offer any number of reasons why the audit signoff might happen later than hoped.

    To be clear, very few of these reasons are going to be cheerful ones. If a provider has yet to publish its accounts because they have not signed off their accounts, it is likely to be engaging with external auditors about the conditions under which they will sign off accounts.

    To give one example of what might happen – a university has an outstanding loan with a covenant attached to it based on financial performance (say, a certain level of growth each year). In 2023–24, it did not reach this target, so needs to renegotiate the covenant, which may make repayments harder (or spread out over a longer period). The auditor will need to wait until this is settled before it signs off the accounts – technically if you are in breach of covenant the whole debt is repayable immediately, something which would make you fail your going concern test.

    We’ve covered covenants on the site before – a lender of whatever sort will offer finance at an attractive rate provided certain conditions are met. These can include things like use of investment (did you actually build the new business school you borrowed money to build?), growth (in terms of finances or student numbers), ESG (are you doing good things as regards environment, society, and governance?) and good standing (are you in trouble with the regulator?) – but at a fundamental level will require a sense that your business is financially viable. If covenant conditions are breached lenders will be keen to help if they hear in advance, but your cost of borrowing (the interest rate charged, bluntly) will rise. And you will find it harder to raise finance in future.

    This is an environment where it is already hard to raise finance – and in establishing new borrowing, or new revolving credit (kind of like an overdraft facility) many universities will end up paying more than in previous years. This all needs to be shown in the accounts.

    Going concern

    When your auditor signs off your accounts, you would very much hope that it will agree that they represent a “going concern” – simply put, that in most plausible scenarios you will have enough money to cover your costs during the next 12 months. If your auditor disagrees that you are a going concern you are in serious trouble – all of the 117 sets of accounts I have read so far have been agreed on a going concern basis.

    This designation tells everyone from regulators to lenders to other stakeholders that your business is viable for the next year – and comes into force on the day your accounts are signed off by the university and external auditor. This is nearly always for a specific technical reason – additional information that is needed in order to make the determination. For some late publications, it is possible that the delay is a deliberate plan to make the designation last as far into the following financial years as possible. This year (2024–25) is even more bleak than last year – anything that keeps finance cheaper (or available!) for longer will be helpful.

    Breaking even and beyond

    So your provider had a surplus last year – that’s good right? It means it took in more money than it spent? Up to a point.

    In 2023–24 we got the very welcome news that Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) has been revalued and contributions reduced for both members and employers. From the annual accounts perspective, this will have lowered staff costs (very often one of the most significant costs, if not the most significant cost, for most) in USS institutions. Conversely, the increase in Teachers Pension Scheme (TPS) contributions will have substantially raised costs in institutions required by law (yes, really!) to offer that scheme to staff.

    That’s some of the movement in staff costs. However, for USS, the value of future contributions to the current calculated scheme debt (which is shared among all active employers in the scheme) has also fallen. Indeed, as the scheme is currently in surplus, it shows as income rather than expenditure This is not money that the university actually has available to spend, but the drop shows out in staff costs – though most affected separate this out into a separate line it also shows up in the overall surplus or deficit (to be clear this is the accounting rules, there’s no subterfuge here: if you are interested in why I can only point you to BUFDG’s magisterial “Accounting for Pensions” guidelines).

    For this reason, many USS providers show a much healthier balance than accurately reflects a surplus they can actually spend or invest. This gives them the appearance of having performed as a group much better than TPS institutions, where the increase in contributions has made it more expensive to employ staff.

    Here I show the level of reported surplus(deficit) after tax, both with and without the USS valuation effect. Removing the impact of valuation puts 35 providers (including big names like Hull, Birmingham, and York) in deficit based on financial statements published so far.

    [Full screen]

    And here I show underlying changes in staff costs (without the USS valuation effect). This is the raw spend on employing staff, including pay and pensions contributions. A drop could indicate that economies have been sought – employing fewer staff, employing different (cheaper) staff, or changes in terms and conditions. But it also indicates underlying changes in TPS contributions (up) or USS contributions (down) with respect to current employees on those schemes.

    [Full screen]

    Charts updated 11am 27 January to remove a handful of discrepancies.

    Fee income

    For most universities the main outgoing is staff costs, and the main source of income is tuition fees. Much has been made of the dwindling spending power of home undergraduate fees because of a failure to uprate with inflation, but this line in the accounts also includes unregulated fees – most notably international fees and postgraduate fees. The full name of the line in the accounts is “tuition fees and educational contracts”, so if your provider does a lot of bespoke work for employers this will also show up here.

    Both of these areas of provision have seen significant expansion in many providers over recent years – and the signs are that 2023–24 was another data point aligned with this trend for postgraduate provision. For this reason, the total amount of fee income has risen in a lot of cases, and when we get provider level UCAS data shortly it will make it clear that just how much of this is due to unregulated fees. International fees are another matter, and again we need the UCAS end of cycle data to unpick it, but it appears from visa applications and acceptances that from some countries (China, for example) demand has remained stable, while for others (Nigeria, India) demand has fallen.

    Here I show fee income for the past two years, and the difference. This is total fee income, and does not discriminate between types of fees.

    [Full screen]

    One very important thing to bear in mind is that these are figures for the financial year, and represent fees relating to that year rather than the total amount of fees per student enrolled. For example, if a student started in January (an increasingly common start point for some courses at some institutions) you will only see the proportion of fees that had been paid by 31 July shown in the accounts. If you teach a lot of nursing students who start at non-traditional times of the year this will have a notable impact, as will a failure to recruit as many international students as you had hoped to do in January 2024 (though this will also show up in next year’s accounts).

    And it is also worth bearing in mind that income from fees paid with respect to students registered at the provider but studying somewhere else via an academic partnership, or involved in a franchise arrangement (something that has seen a lot of growth in some providers) shows up in this budget line.

    Other movements

    Quite a number of providers have drawn down investments or made use of unrestricted reserves. This is very much as you would expect, these are very much “rainy day” provisions and even if it is not actually raining now the storm clouds are gathering. Using money like this is a big step though – you can only spend it once, and the decision to spend it needs to link to plans not to need to spend it in the near future. So even if your balance looks healthy, a shift like this speaks eloquently of the kinds of cost-saving measures (up to and including course closures and staff redundancy) that you may currently see happening around you.

    Similarly, a provider may choose to sell assets – usually buildings – that it does not have an immediate or future use for. The costs of running and maintaining a building can quickly add up – a decision to sell releases the capital and can also cut running costs. Other providers choose to hang on to buildings (perhaps as assets that can be sold in future) but drastically cut maintenance and running costs for this reason. Again, you can (of course) only sell a building once, and a longer term maintenance pause can make it very expensive to put your estates back into use. I should note that the overall condition of university estates is not great and is declining (as you can read in the AUDE Estates Management Report) , precisely because providers have already started doing stuff like this. If the heating seems to be struggling, if the window doesn’t open, that’s why.

    In some cases we have seen decisions to pause capital programmes – not borrowing money and not building buildings as was previously planned. Here, the university makes an on-paper saving equivalent to the cost of finance if it was going to borrow money, or frees up reserves for other uses if it was using its own funds. Capital programmes don’t just include buildings – perhaps investment in software (the kind of big enterprise systems that make it possible to run your university) has been paused, and you are left struggling with outdated or unsuitable finance, admissions, or student record systems.

    Where we are talking about pausing building programmes it is important to remember that these exist to facilitate expansion or strategic plans for growth. The “shiny new building” is often perceived as a vice chancellor’s vanity project – in reality that new business school and the recruitment it makes possible may represent the university’s best hope of growing home fee income faster than inflation.

    What’s next?

    We see financial information substantially after the financial year ends – and for most larger providers this comes alongside the submission of an annual financial return to their regulator. We know for instance that the Office for Students is now looking at ways of getting in year data in areas where it has significant concerns, but financial data (by dint of it being checked carefully and audited) is generally historic in nature.

    For this reason what is happening on your campus right now is something that only your finance department has any hope of understanding, and there may be unexpected pressures currently driving strategy that are not shown (or even hinted at) in last years’ accounts. Your colleagues in finance and planning teams are working hard to forecast the end of year result, to calculate the KFIs (Key Financial Indicators) that others rely on, and to plan for the issues that could arise in the 2025 audit. The finance business partners or faculty accountants – or whatever name they have where you work – will be gathering information, exploring and explaining scenarios, and anticipating pressures that may require a change in financial strategy.

    The data I have presented here is drawn from published accounts – the data submitted to regulators that eventually ends up on HESA may be modified and resubmitted as understanding and situations change – for this reason come the early summer figures might look very different than what are presented here (I should also add I have transcribed these by hand – for which service you should absolutely buy me a pint) – so although I have done my best I may have made transcription errors which I will gladly and speedily correct.

    However scary your university accounts may be, I would caution that the next set (2024–25 financial year) will be even more scary. The point at which the home undergraduate fee increase in England kicks in for those eligible to charge it (2025–26) feels a long way off, and we have the rise in National Insurance Contributions (due April 2025) to contend with before then.

    There are a small but significant number of large providers looking at an unplanned deficit for 2024–25, as you might expect they will already be in contact with their regulator and their bank. Stay safe out there.

    If you are interested in institutional finances, I must insist that you read the superb BUFDG publication “Understanding University Finance” – it is both the most readable and the most comprehensive explanation of annual university accounts you will find.

    Source link

  • Possible futures for working environments

    Possible futures for working environments

    by Nic Kipar

    This blog follows an earlier short review of the literature and is based on the author’s experience in a range of universities. It suggests how working environments might change in practice, with illustrations from the author’s own institution, the University of Glasgow.

    Introduction

    In thinking about working environments, the most effective approach is to ask individuals how they work best. This enables them to thrive in the environment most suited to themselves and the particular activity they are undertaking. More importantly, staff should be given the freedom to experiment with different settings, without others imposing judgments based on their own limited perspectives. This openness fosters a supportive and adaptable workplace, enabling everyone to find the spaces that best suit their work and wellbeing.

    Embracing new thinking

    Traditionally, we have not considered whether staff on our campuses are enjoying their work environments and are able to be their most creative and effective selves. This oversight stands in contrast with the University Value of Curiosity and Discovery: “Embracing new thinking and innovation in a spirit of open minded collaboration that positively impacts on ourselves, our University, our city, society and the world.”

    In response, the University of Glasgow has recently begun incorporating a co-design element into its Workspace Futures Programme, starting with a ‘diagnose’ phase. Yet I still wonder: are we thinking boldly enough? Are we exploring possibilities that reach beyond our usual perspectives and assumptions?

    Let me pose a provocation from my colleague Dr Nathalie Tasler (personal communication, November 2024):

    Remember the Disney movie Aladdin? “Phenomenal cosmic powers… itty-bitty living space!” So how can our immensely talented and creative colleagues thrive when their environment is filled with “stop rules” (Runco, 2007)? In social psychology, stop rules are constraints—often invisible—that limit our thinking, stifle creativity, and shut down possibility thinking (Craft, 2005; Lin, 2020) before they even have a chance to take shape. When workplaces impose these restrictions, whether through rigid protocols, uninspiring spaces, or unspoken norms, how can we expect innovation and fresh ideas to flourish? What would it take to create a work environment where potential isn’t confined, but unleashed?Transforming everyone’s spaces

    While we have been focused on transforming student study spaces and creating vibrant, open campuses that attract students and the public alike, we may be neglecting the needs of our own staff. The University of Edinburgh (Bayne, presentation in November 2024) uses the term “buzz” to describe the energy of a thriving campus, drawing inspiration from the University of Warwick’s public events, like World Cup screenings in collaboration with local businesses, that created memorable, widely shared experiences. Edinburgh’s themes of Belonging and buzz; Sanctuary and beauty; Sustainable connections; Mobility, flexibility and flow, and Openness, public co-creation and surfacing resonate with our work on student spaces, but have we fully explored the potential of spaces that could truly empower our staff work best depending on their known, or yet unknown preferences?

    Understanding individual preferences in workspace design is challenging. Environmental needs are deeply personal, shaped by complex and unique factors. This makes it impossible to assume that one person’s ideal workspace will suit everyone. When we project our own preferences onto others, we risk introducing bias and overlooking or misjudging their needs. These hidden barriers are created by a world design with certain people in mind, leaving others feeling excluded. They make aspects of society accessible to some while shutting out others. These mismatches are the building blocks of exclusion, making people feel unwelcome or unable to fully participate (Holmes, 2018).

    It is one thing to offer flexible options for staff to work from home or from a campus office. But we should also look closely at the campus itself, at how we treat these spaces and how they treat us. Typically, we arrive on campus, head into buildings and into offices or meeting rooms, and operate within closed-off spaces that might be limiting our ability to think creatively or envision the future. It makes me wonder: Are we missing something essential?

    An office is an office is an office?

    We expect our staff to innovate and imagine exciting futures, yet how can we foster that kind of thinking when we confine people to uninspiring spaces? A room does not need to have white walls or dull furniture to feel stifling; even a vibrant, biophilic space can feel restrictive if it is still just four walls. What if we reimagined our workplaces so that, rather than feeling like “just another day at the office”, staff actually felt genuinely inspired to be there?

    At present, we do not offer staff the full range of spaces that might suit different types of work or support them in ways they find personally meaningful. Why is it, for example, that a staff member working in an on-campus café among students is often seen as “not really working”? Such assumptions are outdated, belonging to a pre-digital era. Why do we still insist that all staff need traditional offices, all the time?

    Offices have their purpose, of course, but not all office types are effective for all needs. Open-plan offices with cubicles, for instance, combine the worst aspects of every workspace model. Various issues are associated with open office spaces featuring cubicles, which are often regarded as suboptimal work environments. Common problems include lack of privacy, increased noise levels, and the inability to control one’s environment, which can lead to diminished productivity, lower job satisfaction, and elevated stress levels. The systematic literature review by Colenberg et al (2021) finds a link between cramped cubicle setups in open spaces and decreased physical and mental health due to poor environmental control. I recall working in university offices in the early 1990s, when alternative approaches were simply unimaginable. Back then, an office with your name on the door was a status symbol and a sign of belonging. But why are we still behaving as though we are living in the 20th century?

    Spaces designed to fit people, not making people fit

    James McCune Smith Learning Hub (JMS) © UofG

    If someone can concentrate deeply and produce creative, high-quality work in a bustling student study space like the James McCune Smith Learning Hub (JMS,) or in a moderately busy area like the Mazumdar-Shaw Advanced Research Centre (ARC) lobby, who are we to judge? For some, the energy of a café may be the perfect environment to spark ideas and focus, while others need absolute silence and solitude to work through complex problems. Some might prefer a quiet, shared workspace, finding comfort in the presence of others without the noise. Many benefit from working at home, or outside if weather permits, while others feel more motivated and inspired by coming onto campus.

    Ultimately, as long as staff are accessible when needed and are delivering excellent work, there is no “right” way to structure a work environment. What works for one person may not work for another, and that is precisely the point: a truly supportive workplace recognises and respects individual preferences and needs. By allowing each person the freedom to choose the space that best supports their productivity and wellbeing, we create a culture that values flexibility and respects diversity in how we all work best.

    Mazumdar-Shaw Advanced Research Centre (ARC) © UofG

    Welcoming variation and diversity as agents for evolution

    The psychologist Dr Lorna Champion (personal communication, November 2024) summarised this succinctly: “Evolution is based on variation. If a characteristic supports the survival then it is retained and handed on, because of difference, we evolve. If we don’t have variation then we stagnate.” It is time to embrace new thinking, to break from outdated models, and to create environments that truly support and inspire staff to thrive.

    Nic Kipar leads the Academic and Digital Development team at the University of Glasgow. She played an instrumental role in the creation of the James McCune Smith Learning Hub, focusing on inclusive active learning. Nic co-leads the Enhancing Learning & Teaching Practice workstream, contributing to the university’s Learning & Teaching strategy and planning for the upcoming Keystone building, which will feature large interdisciplinary labs. Nic also chairs a working group on Pedagogy in Superlabs, pioneering these innovative spaces for the university.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link